i just wish the people who argued for prioritizing Iraq over Afghanistan these past 6 years would up and apologize.

When General Patreus became CENTCOM commander in 2006, he actually addressed this matter gave Iraq far greater priority over Afghanistan at that time. Iraq and the persian gulf region are more valuable to the rest of the planet than south asia because of the natural resources, which makes achieving security and stability there the higher priority of the two. That of course does not mean that Afghanistan/Pakistan was not important, just that the seriousness of the problems at the time combined with the normal value to the United States of that region made it the higher priority then.

Robert Gates, the current Secretary of Defense as well as Bush's Secretary Of Defense starting in late 2006, agreed back in late 2006 that Iraq at the time was a higher priority than Afghanistan!

As Obama said in his own speech, the President of the United States does not have the luxury of solving the nations problems one at a time. Its a matter of balance and Gates and Patreus agreed at the time that Iraq was the higher priority. They were correct, and Iraq has made amazing progress since that time.

Yet, if you were to ask Democrats before the Presidents speech if they supported sending more troops into Iraq, the majority would say no. In fact, the latest gallup poll shows that 50% of registered Democrats think that US military involvment in Afghanistan going back to 2001 has been a mistake.

So we have several contradictions here. A majority of Democrats blame Bush for the current situation in Aghanistan, apparently because he did not send enough troops. Yet, they are against sending more troops and half of them think US military involvement in Afghanistan since 2001 has been a mistake!

"the surge" "worked" insofar as it may have given the US enough temporary security to leave, and given the apocalyptic violence in Iraq under Bush/Rumsfeld up until the democratic victories in the 2006 mid-term elections that forced the resignation of Rumsfeld, this can be seen as an accomplishment.

so total humiliation of the US has been averted. indeed, this could be seen as having "worked." but it's yet another example of the umpteenth time the goalposts have been moved in Iraq, and words have been redefined by the reality on the ground. the surge was supposed to create a secure environment in which a new Iraqi political settlement could be achieved betwee the various sectarian factions in that sewn-together country.

Quote:

By STEVEN LEE MYERS
BAGHDAD — Watching Iraq’s Parliament debate an election law last week, inside a conference center still decorated with mosaics of Saddam Hussein’s wartime delusions, ought to have been reassuring to those who wish the country’s nascent democracy well. It wasn’t.

The impasse over the election — which is now almost certain to slip past a constitutional deadline set for January — has laid bare more than Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian fissures, which simmer never far from the surface. It has also exposed the unfinished business of building a democratic system, just as the United States begins to wrap up its military mission, and with it much of America’s influence.

As the Obama administration prepares to unveil a new set of “benchmarks” to measure political progress in Afghanistan — and to prod President Hamid Karzai to improve governance there as he anticipates more troops from America — Iraq’s experience can serve as a cautionary tale.

Much of what has stalled the election law stems from the failure to achieve the same sort of benchmarks, which Congress imposed when President Bush ordered a “surge” of American forces here in 2007 to stanch an incipient civil war.

Adopting legislation to knit the country together; reforming the Constitution; strengthening independent security forces; reconciling Iraq’s Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds — all were benchmarks, and all remain partly or wholly unmet, despite the security gains that were supposed to create the space for political progress and thus peace.

Instead, Iraqis treat their Constitution — like the benchmarks — the way they treat what few traffic lights operate here.

“So what?” a Kurdish lawmaker, Mahmoud Othman, said when asked about the risk of holding the election later than the Constitution demands. “Nothing in Iraq is very legitimate.”

As a matter of policy, there’s nothing wrong with prodding Iraq or Afghanistan toward reforms aimed at creating stable democratic government. Achieving them could hasten the withdrawal of American troops, which is clearly on Mr. Obama’s mind. Once Americans set a timetable to do so, however — as Mr. Obama is now under pressure to do for Afghanistan — momentum has a way of evaporating.

“It is time for us to transition to the Iraqis,” Mr. Obama said when he last visited Iraq. “They need to take responsibility for their country and for their sovereignty. And in order for them to do that, they have got to make political accommodations.”

But that was seven months ago, and little has changed. In fact, the coming election has paralyzed Iraq’s lawmakers because they seem less interested in accommodation than in jockeying for best advantage out of the rapidly changing rules that will govern the vote.

The postponing of a planned census — another unmet constitutional requirement — means that no one can even agree how many voters each lawmaker should represent or how seats should be apportioned. The Iraqis raised the number of seats in Parliament to 323 anyway, based on little more than a guess that Iraq’s population has grown to 32 million, from 27 million.

“It’s important to recognize how this kind of general constitutional and political immaturity is continuing to hamper progress in the Iraqi democracy,” said Reider Visser, an Iraq expert at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.

Despite campaign oratory about reaching across sectarian and ethnic lines, the fight over the election has broken along those very lines. One of Iraq’s vice presidents, Tariq al-Hashimi, vetoed a much-delayed election law last month on grounds that the vote wouldn’t fairly represent Iraqis living abroad, most of them Sunnis.

Mr. Hashimi, a Sunni who told me not long ago that Iraq was now ready for historic reconciliation, was widely accused of acting in a purely sectarian way to ensure more votes for his bloc. The Parliament’s Shiite and Kurdish blocs promptly joined forces in last week’s session and, despite intense American lobbying, passed yet another election law that would reduce Sunni seats even more.

If there’s good news in Iraq’s election impasse, it’s that the conflict is still a political one. So far. The bad news is that politics in Iraq remain rooted in passions that turned violent the last time Iraq held a national election, in 2005.

“The election impasse demonstrates that the Sunni Arabs have not fundamentally reconciled themselves to their reduced stature in Iraq’s power structure,” Kenneth Katzman, an analyst at the Congressional Research Service in Washington, wrote in an e-mail message.

The new election was supposed to ameliorate Sunni grievances; now it threatens to revive the Sunnis’ sense of disenfranchisement and, perhaps, drive some back into the insurgency.

“It is highly likely that many Sunni Arabs will revert to the use of violence if they do not get what they perceive is their fair share of power and resources by participating in the legitimate political process,” Mr. Katzman wrote.

While that may seem pessimistic after the security successes of the last two years, a wealth of recent history shows that there is nothing inevitable about democratic transition.

The collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in democracy from Eastern Europe to the Pacific — only to see the tide ebb as political leaders reverted to old instincts. Russia, Belarus and the Central Asian republics became authoritarian. Georgia splintered. Ukraine’s Orange Revolution in 2005 has degenerated into an ethnically tinged political paralysis not unlike Iraq’s.

“Democracy, as I understand it, is not like a vehicle or a car,” Sami al-Askari, a senior member of Parliament close to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, said. “Just buy a Mercedes or a B.M.W. and everyone can drive it, whether he is from Russia or Iraq. Democracy is a culture, based on culture, and culture needs time.”

“America’s Role in Nation-Building,” a book by the RAND Corporation published shortly after the American invasion in 2003, said as much.

Reviewing examples from Germany and Japan to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, the authors wrote, “The record suggests that, while staying long does not guarantee success, leaving early ensures failure.”

But now the window for the United States to nurture Iraq’s democratic institutions — the Parliament, government ministries, political parties, independent courts — as the route for resolving disputes is rapidly closing. Mr. Obama has ordered the last combat troops out by August; a security agreement between Iraq and the United States says all must be out when 2011 ends. American influence is already waning.

When the American ambassador, Christopher R. Hill, went to Parliament on Sunday to lobby for a resolution over the election law, some deputies demanded he be barred from the building.

so far, we have (a minimum) of tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, 5K dead Americans, and $3T spent, and Iraq is not stable, not democratic, and not self-governing.

US troops will be withdrawn, and it's likely that Iraq will slide again into chaos. we cannot afford, nor do we want, American troops to remain in Iraq -- as a, yes, colonial presence, as the term is understood in the 21st century -- for the duration of our lifetimes. many are fine with this. they would like an American presence in any and all middle-eastern countries, even though this is one of the greatest sources of jihadist rage against the US and the West.

of course, we don't know anything. as opposed to others, i admit doubt and explore uncertainty. it is possible that Iraq may save itself. but that will be because of the Iraqis, not because of "the surge." "the surge" helped the Americans by reducing violence -- and had more to do with shifting of loyalty, often paid, of various Sunni ethnic groups -- and giving them a justification by which leaving was possible.

however, to say that "the surge" has "worked" is premature at best, and tragically wrong at worst.

"the surge" "worked" insofar as it may have given the US enough temporary security to leave, and given the apocalyptic violence in Iraq under Bush/Rumsfeld up until the democratic victories in the 2006 mid-term elections that forced the resignation of Rumsfeld, this can be seen as an accomplishment.

The surge of American troops in Iraq accomplished far more than you list here. While violence in Iraq had worsned, it never reached "apocalyptic levels". For an example of apocalyptic levels of violence, look at Bosnia or Rawanda or Saddam's own military operations against his people.

Plus, lets not forget that the Democratic victories in congress had NO impact at all on US policy with regards to Iraq. The Democrats with new majorities in the House and Senate charged foward in 2007 thinking they could force President Bush to withdraw from Iraq. Instead, President Bush did the exact opposite and succeeded. George Bush increased the number of combat Brigades in Iraq by 33% despite the massive opposition in Congress, and attempts by congress to do the exact opposite.

Quote:

so total humiliation of the US has been averted. indeed, this could be seen as having "worked." but it's yet another example of the umpteenth time the goalposts have been moved in Iraq, and words have been redefined by the reality on the ground. the surge was supposed to create a secure environment in which a new Iraqi political settlement could be achieved betwee the various sectarian factions in that sewn-together country.

The only ones who have been humiliated in regards to US policy on Iraq are those that fought so hard to prevent the Surge in 2007 and claimed that it would not achieve anything or like Barack Obama, claimed it would make the situation worse. Democrats have their tails firmly tucked between their legs on this issue or have become converted proponents of "CLEAR, HOLD, AND BUILD" as a tactic that can work in Afghanistan as it did in Iraq.

Quote:

so far, we have (a minimum) of tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, 5K dead Americans, and $3T spent, and Iraq is not stable, not democratic, and not self-governing.

The number of dead Iraqi's over the past 6 years pales in comparison to multiple episodes of killing and war while Saddam was in power for 24 years. Tens of thousands of Iraqi's dead in 6 years does not stand up to the tens of thousands of Iraqis gassed by Saddam in a single day, the several hundred thousand murdered in one month in 1991, the several hundred thousand killed in wars started by Saddam as well as the several hundred thousand killed by Saddam in countries that border Iraq.

The number of US killed in action in Iraq is below 3,500, and the number of US combat deaths in Iraq have dropped from a high of 126 in a single month in 2004, to as little as 2 in a month in 2009.

US spending on the Iraq war has not even reached 1 trillion after nearly 7 years of being there. Annual US spending on the Iraq war is less than 1% of annual US GDP. Total defense spending as well as spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is less than US defense spending during the peacetime of the 1980s, A point I might add that was recently made by Secretary of Defense Gates!

Iraq has had successful democratic elections that have been respected by the majority of the population in stark contrast to Afghanistan. Iraq is self governing and money and aid are being distributed to provinces that were often neglected while Saddam was in power.

Quote:

US troops will be withdrawn, and it's likely that Iraq will slide again into chaos.

Provided US troops are withdrawn based on conditions on the ground in Iraq, and the Iraqi's continue to sustain the growth and development they have made over the past few years, that senerio is very unlikely to happen. It would have indeed happened though if Barack Obama and the liberals had their way back in January 2007 and had withdrawn all US combat Brigades by March 31, 2008.

Quote:

we cannot afford, nor do we want, American troops to remain in Iraq -- as a, yes, colonial presence, as the term is understood in the 21st century -- for the duration of our lifetimes. many are fine with this. they would like an American presence in any and all middle-eastern countries, even though this is one of the greatest sources of jihadist rage against the US and the West.

The United States cannot afford to neglect its security by prematurely withdrawing from area's of the world that are vital to its security. The two world wars of the 20th century tought the United States that military intervention and engagement with the rest of the world was vital to its security. The growth of the global economy, growing interdependence, and the need for natural resources has only reinforced this fact.

No one wants a US military presence in any country for no reason at all. US military deployments and presence in countries since World War II, and after the Cold War have helped to aid and stabilize much of the world, detering a 3rd World War, preventing the spread of Communism, safe guarding the worlds vital natural resources, bringing justice to terrorist, removing threatening dictators or governments, reversing agression, and ending genocide in various parts of the world.

As for the middle east and Afghanistan, it should be pointed out how small US deployments were in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other places before September 2001, compared to today. Yet, that did not stop Jihadist Terrorist from blowing up US embassy's in Kenya and Tanzinia in August 1998 murdering hundreds of Kenyans, Tanzinians and Americans. It did not stop the bombing of the USS cohl, or the the attacks of September 11. So this idea that if the United States did not have any US troops in country A or B then it would never be attacked is laughably absurd.

Quote:

of course, we don't know anything. as opposed to others, i admit doubt and explore uncertainty. it is possible that Iraq may save itself. but that will be because of the Iraqis, not because of "the surge."

There are hundreds of thousands of US troops who have served in Iraq rebuilding that country who deserve the same respect and gratitude that US troops received for their necessary services in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. Without them, what has been achieved in Iraq to this point would have been impossible!

Quote:

"the surge" helped the Americans by reducing violence -- and had more to do with shifting of loyalty, often paid, of various Sunni ethnic groups -- and giving them a justification by which leaving was possible.

Once again, liberals just can give credit when it comes to the US military. The US military will continue to study the surge military operations of 2007-2008 for decades to come, and the hundreds of thousands of men and women who participated in those operations that started in Baghdad and then went further north and west in Iraq will never forget what they accomplished. The whole Sunni Awakening thing started BEFORE the surge, but it did not ever have the impact on the reductions in violence like the Deployment of the Surge Brigades did in 2007. While the Sunni Awakening started in the summer of 2006, it was not until the summer and fall of 2007 when all the surge brigades had arrived, that you began to see significant drops in casualties and overall violence.

Quote:

however, to say that "the surge" has "worked" is premature at best, and tragically wrong at worst.

Even Barack Obama admits that the surge worked in Iraq and now is launching his own surge in Afghanistan.

Today in Iraq, the current murder rate is LESS THAN THAT IN THE UNITED STATES!!!!!!!!!!!! Iraqi security forces are now the ones providing security throughout the country. 5 years ago, 99% of todays Iraqi security forces did not even exist! The Iraqi military is now making major purchases of US weaponry and hardware which will tie Iraq to the United States in ways Iran and Syria will be unable to match.

Iraq today has a standard of living better than that of Morocco when looking at the countries education level, life expectancy, and GDP per capita! None of this would have been possible without the surge in 2007!

That's funny diamond, because if you read the poll you posted, a strong majority of Americans agree with Obama's plan to send more troops.

But given how bitterly partisan this country is and how utterly opposed the Republicans are to anything Obama does, I wouldn't be surprised.

Interestingly, after the speech, support for the Obama surge is even among Republicans and Democrats, and a little less for inedependents. Before the Speech though, you had Republicans for the surge by 60% to 70% with Democrats against such a surge by the same number. So I think Obama's speech has had successful impact on public opinion, especially among his own party, at least for the time being.

Ok, then show me the qoutes of people disagreeing in here with Barack Obama's policy in Iraq in 2007 as well the Democratic congressional attempts to start immediately withdrawing troops. The majority in here is on the left, and I don't recall anyone on the left opposing Barack Obama in 2007 or congressional democrats on policy in Iraq in 2007.

But hey, if you have some qoutes or know some people on the left that were against Obama policy on Iraq then in FYM, dig it up, it would be very interesting.

Take note, we all have the same access to the search function.
Want to make an accusation about what other FYM users have said?Use it. You're making the accusation.

Even Barack Obama admits that the surge worked in Iraq and now is launching his own surge in Afghanistan.

He was either wrong on the surge in the first place or just placating his base at the time.

What's important is that Obama has been shown capable of making good decisions, apart from politics.

While Bush (mostly) made decisions apart from politics on Iraq and Afghanistan, the surge itself demonstrates that he wasn't wrong like Obama, in policy or political rhetoric, he was wrong in practice. Costing God knows what...

Come on now, we all know you exist. Surely, you must have some reaction to the Presidents speech? Lets hear it!

It's also "interesting" that the handful of conservative posters have been largely silent--at least as far as I can tell--on Obama's plan.

Thing is, it's not really that "interesting." It's just human nature. People tend to settle for a grimace of disapproval rather than a ringing condemnation, when the person in question generally reflects their views (or at least is viewed as "better than the alternative.") That's not so much hypocricy as it is human nature. Likewise, when someone you despise makes a decision that leans towards the viewpoint you support, you also tend towards silence, or if not, then nitpicking over specific details rather than considering the bigger picture.

Liberals who support Obama may not like his decision to "surge" in Afghanistan, but on balance they view him as still better than having a McCain or Bush in the White House, so there protest is naturally muted. Conservatives who dislike Obama don't have much to say either, at least about the plan as a whole. I don't think you'll find many conservatives saying we need to "cut and run" in Afghanistan just to spite Obama. The best they can do is say "we shouldn't set a timetable" which I think is a lame critcism since Obama said in his speech that it would depend on the situation on the ground. His critics are selectively ignoring that.

As for me, personally, I don't recall being vocally opposed to Bush's surge, and I'm not opposed to this one. While I disagreed strongly with going in to Iraq, I was never in a hurry to just leave either (I think a research of my past posts will bear this out). I was always more in favor of military action in Afghanistan so I'm all the more supportive of Obama's recent plan. I've always been skeptical about the liklihood of "success" in both countries, but I don't see any easy way out. I feel Obama's plan, including the GOAL of beginning to draw down troops in July 2011, to be pretty balanced.

Iraq and the persian gulf region are more valuable to the rest of the planet than south asia because of the natural resources, which makes achieving security and stability there the higher priority of the two. That of course does not mean that Afghanistan/Pakistan was not important, just that the seriousness of the problems at the time combined with the normal value to the United States of that region made it the higher priority then.